Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Dick Smith's open letter to John Anderson

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Dick Smith's open letter to John Anderson

Old 13th Sep 2021, 10:19
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
I stand by my statement.

CASA OAR does not operate under the 1988 CAR, they were created as a stand-alone office within CASA and are governed entirely by the ICAO-compliant Airspace Act and Regulations. Section 11A of the CAR 1988 does, however, require the rest of CASA to operate in accordance with the above act and regulations or advise the Minister why they are not so doing.

Those laws do not include resorting to ancient CARs such as 99A, or Part 139 - CA/GRS or the Airspace legislation would say so.

Once again we see CASA, including OAR, not understanding their own legislation, or if they do, being too clever by half in their continued endeavours to re-create the "OCTA" of the pre-TAAATS era.

As many have written, in many different threads, they are a law to themselves.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2021, 10:57
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,743
Midnight, in the days of yore we were able to fall back on "multiple IFR traffic" if workload made a full traffic service unworkable, again a very rare event. I'd suggest you'll miss out on traffic due to workload under the current system about as often as "multiple IFR traffic" was used by Flight Service.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2021, 12:06
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 528
Until I left FS in 1988, in an AFIZ all traffic got full info on all other traffic. Outside AFIZ, IFR always received full traffic info on IFR and known VFR, except when really busy, you could pass the VFR traffic as multiple VFR traffic in your area. Only ever used it during Birdsville Races weekend. One I remember was an FK27 taxying Moomba for Adelaide, pilot responded with give me a hint, I said don't go East, as most were tracking via Innamincka or thereabouts.
Doubt those rules changed before the demise of FS.
topdrop is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2021, 23:58
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,124
Originally Posted by Geoff Fairless View Post
I stand by my statement.

CASA OAR does not operate under the 1988 CAR, they were created as a stand-alone office within CASA and are governed entirely by the ICAO-compliant Airspace Act and Regulations. Section 11A of the CAR 1988 does, however, require the rest of CASA to operate in accordance with the above act and regulations or advise the Minister why they are not so doing.

Those laws do not include resorting to ancient CARs such as 99A, or Part 139 - CA/GRS or the Airspace legislation would say so.
The Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulations 2007 make no reference to OAR, they simply state "CASA". While those are the OARs primary working legislation, they and others in CASA work with all the other legislation relevant to CASA as well.

CAR 1988 is still in force (the last amendment was last year) and covers many things not yet covered in other legislation.

My experience over the years has been many CASA employees don't know or understand their own legislation.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 00:03
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,776
I reckon there's only one person on the planet who knows or understands the whole of civil aviation safety rules in Australia. After all, he made most of them up!

At least CAR 1988 will be gone by the year 2003. That's when things will get simpler.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 01:50
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 60
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Perhaps the 'hard-hitting' objectively independent investigation of the Mangalore tragedy by the ATSB will recommend reinstatement of FS?
Perhaps the Coroners Court of Victoria might have something to say on the matter as their role includes independently investigate deaths and reduce preventable deaths.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 02:05
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,776
If the Coroners Court of Victoria has a clue about airspace arrangements and procedures in Australia, I'll give money to charity. If the Coroners Court of Victoria is inclined to learn anything about airspace arrangements and procedures in Australia, we can safely predict that the Coroner will 'reach out' to none other than Airservices and CASA, both of whom will fall over backwards to show that the pilots were entirely at fault.

The families of the deceased need to engage Counsel who has some experience in aviation in Australia and that Counsel needs to engage someone like alphacentauri to provide qualified expert submissions to the coronial inquiry. But even then, a Victorian Coroner's recommendations about airspace arrangements and procedures will gather dust in Canberra.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 02:40
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 773
The Coroner might not hold an inquiry at all. They can simply accept the findings of the ATSB report. I don't recall the Victorian Coroner having an inquiry into the crash at Mt Hotham as an example.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 02:51
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,776
True, LL. The Victorian Coroner is compelled to conduct an inquest only if:

- a person dies (not of natural causes) in custody or care

- a deceased person’s identity is not known, or

- the Coroner suspects homicide and no one has been charged in relation to the death.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 23:02
  #70 (permalink)  
Gne
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: With the Wizard
Posts: 23
TIS/B AND FIS/B

From another thread - https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/...UGUST_2021.pdf

The proposal to conduct a similar trial on the Mornington Peninsular in 2009 was torpedoed by the Airservices/CASA cabal.

The technology and potential use was also detailed in the report CASA withheld from publication following completion of the study under RFQ 09/342.

Gne
Gne is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2021, 12:01
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,591
I don't know too many IFR pilots who understand that the IFR/IFR traffic information service in G in Australia is effectively 'workload permitting'. Maybe the pilots involved in the Mangalore tragedy made an assumption that turned out to be invalid?
What assumption would that be? ATC passed traffic to each about each.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 07:28
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 773
There you go LB, the Victorian Coroner has exercised his discretion:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-...ring/100480126
Lookleft is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 09:15
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,776
The insurance litigation will be the 'main game' with the Essendon tragedy. Very rich yanks involved.

The coronial will nonetheless be interesting, punctuated by the kinds of sensational headlines as are at the link in your post.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 21:20
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,776
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was View Post
What assumption would that be? ATC passed traffic to each about each.
The assumption that ATC wouldn't then watch the two known IFR aircraft collide.

Let's not forget the ADS-B mandate propaganda.

The contrasts in the system perplex me somewhat. I always appreciate the effort to which Centre will go to alert a couple of VFR aircraft of our proximity to each other in G, but wonder why it's considered necessary. If it's 'necessary' in the case of two VFR aircraft in G because of the collision risk, it seems to me that it should be 'more necessary' in the case of two IFR aircraft.

It reminds me of why the crew of VH-NGA made assumptions about the weather at YSNF. Repeatedly fed good (and mistaken) news, but no one thought to double check that the crew had received the worst news about their destination (which news, even then, split the CASA FOIs down the middle as to whether diversion was required).

As soon as something goes wrong, everyone 'walks backwards' chanting 'pilot responsibility'.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 22nd Sep 2021 at 22:05.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.